My question is more broad reaching than that. Why does ANY local synod need to have that kind of primatial endorsement or blessing IF as all Orthodoxy seems to say "all bishops are equal"....Why does it not STOP with the local Synod.

Because first off, saying "they're all equal" is a vast oversimplification. Clearly they are all equal in charismatic authority, and even a Patriarch is subject to his own synod and cannot overrule their authority (in Orthodoxy that is). A Metropolitan Bishop is not a regular bishop though, and a Patriarch is not a Metropolitan Bishop, etc.

I'm not a canonist, so I don't know all the ins and outs of the status of the ROCA or how they arrived at semi autonomous status. Clearly they are a historical outgrowth of the MP, so it doesn't seem like a major leap to me to have their ruling hierarch confirmed by their mother church.

It seems (to me) having the Ukrainian Major Archbishop confirmed by the Pope in order to assume his responsibilities, as opposed to his being confirmed by his synod, displays this same parental relationship. That to me would be problematic.

The question of patriarchate creation was raised, and canon 57 of the CCEO says

Quote

The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church.

Conjecture, but...could Rome really have rejected a qualified choice made by a duly constituted Synod of the UGCC? Perhaps so in the 18th century, but today? I don't know......

I doubt that it would have happened in the 18th century either. In Poland?...heh...shur...but in Ukraine?...no.

In the Catholic Church the individual bishop is above the law, and the individual synod or council of bishops is damn near impenetrable: more now than ever before...and I would dare to say that the Roman rite bishops have that canonical power and privilege so finely tuned, and protected in the Curia, that others will have difficulty catching and keeping up for a long while. The Orthodox would be advised to pay close attention to that as we move forward.

According to his own Church he is a Major Archbishop. His flock may call him an Ayatollah but they won't change the reality.

I really doubt he can disobey the Pope and start using the Patriarch title without his approval. Can you prove it?

It clearly shows how in reality Pope treats with his Eastern flock.

His Beatitude Lubomyr Husar was referred to as Patriarch in the presence of His Holiness John Paul II of blessed memory during the two Divine Liturgies that were celebrated during the papal visit to Ukraine in June 2001. Rome never made any statement forbidding its use. While the head of the UGCC may not have the title of Patriarch officially, it doesn't appear to be any problem with the Holy See for the title to be used.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Not sure what you mean by outrank, but if you mean who gets to sit where I can tell you when the American bishops made their ad limina visit my Metropolitan was seated before everyone including the cardinals in view of the fact he is the only American bishop who is the head of a sui iuris Church. The patriarchs always precede the cardinals in any Liturgy I have seen.

So how would rights of the UCC Primate change if he was granted the title of Patriarch?

The only difference between a patriarch and a major archbishop is a patriarch is enthroned by his synod immediately after election and he requests communion with the Pope a major archbishop requests confirmation of his election and is not enthroned until it is given.

That is a bit disingenuous considering the reason the Ukrainians don't have a patriarch and the Russians and Belarusans don't have bishops is because the Russian Patriarch threatened a hissy fit if the Pope grants any of the three. (at least Patriarch Alexy II did, don't know about Patriarch Kyril)

That is a bit disingenuous considering the reason the Ukrainians don't have a patriarch and the Russians and Belarusans don't have bishops is because the Russian Patriarch threatened a hissy fit if the Pope grants any of the three. (at least Patriarch Alexy II did, don't know about Patriarch Kyril)

Yes, it's disingenuous that Vatican prefers to please some schismatics than its own flock.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Yes, it's disingenuous that Vatican prefers to please some schismatics than its own flock.

Indeed. The Pope is in a damned if he does, damned if he don't scenario. If he pleases his flock dialogue and coopeartion with the Orthodox ends. If he doesn't you get to complain he doesn't treat us well even though it is to your advantage.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

It's not 'to my advantage'. The UCC Primate's title doesn't affect me in any way.

I meant Orthodox in general. The Russian Church certainky thinks the UGCC Primate's title affects it.

Just the trouble making potential: for one thing, in the age of kissy face, the PoM would be considered impolite if it didn't address the UGCC primate as the Patriarch of Kiev and All Ukraine, which wouldn't be such a problem if there existed such an office (there should be, but that's another issue). Or can they still call him the bishop of Lviv?

The Patriarch of Msocow and the Metropolitan of Kiev aren't alone in this: the archbishops of Alexandria in submission to the Vatican (both of them, and the third which never set foot there and was finally abolished after Vatican II's opening) cannot take the status of Pope, Alexandria being the original papacy.

I'm sure for similar reasons many are skitish about Bp. Siluan Italy taking the title of where his see is located: Rome. Sort of a titular bishop in reverse.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If the Eastern Catholic Churches are Rome's sisters, then why do they need the Vatican's permission to change the title of one of their heads? Shouldn't the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church be official enough?

Indeed, those are the types of questions that I often pose to my Eastern Catholic friends in the context of what being a 'sui juris' Church means.

BTW, the new Major-Archbishop has to make this request as it is expected by his flock. I would anticipate that the answer from Rome will be as it has been for some years. The Greek Catholics will honor him as Patriarch anyway, and the rest of us will use the Major-Archbishop title.

To be fair, in Bulgaria the Phanar thought it, and it alone, had the right to elevate Bulgaria (for the third time) to Patriarchal Status. The Bulgarian Church ignored the Phanar's protest, the other Churches came for the elevation, and that was that. The Phanar, again, had to play catchup. Serbia and Romania, which had been patriarchates like Bularia (actually, as part of the first and second Bulgarian patriarchates), humored the Phanar by requesting the title once they were fully reunited after WWI.

Russia was elevated, and its elevation confirmed by a Holy Synod of the four patriarchs and the other Churches.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Because that church is semi autonomous. A truly self ruling church cannot have its primate confirmed by another.

My question is more broad reaching than that. Why does ANY local synod need to have that kind of primatial endorsement or blessing IF as all Orthodoxy seems to say "all bishops are equal"....Why does it not STOP with the local Synod.

Where the bishop is; there is the Church...no?

Well I am thinking with the evidence before me...perhaps not.

The principle of conciliarity is throwing you. Other than a rubber stamp, the Vatican doesn't practice it.

Moscow is ROCOR's local synod.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Generally, certain positions will lead to the bishop becoming a cardinal. Archbishops for the See of Boston, within a couple of years of their appointment are elevated to cardinal. Previous Major Archbishops (sounds so military...lol) have all been made cardinals. It will only be a matter of time before the new Major Archbishop will be enrolled into the College of Cardinals. Tho, due to his age, they may wait a bit longer than usual.

Become a cardinal? Are you sure about that? Historically that has not been the case but Slipyj etc. was the exception.

Lots of talk about talks with the Orthodox. Rome has chosen Moscow over Lviv again.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Generally, certain positions will lead to the bishop becoming a cardinal. Archbishops for the See of Boston, within a couple of years of their appointment are elevated to cardinal. Previous Major Archbishops (sounds so military...lol) have all been made cardinals. It will only be a matter of time before the new Major Archbishop will be enrolled into the College of Cardinals. Tho, due to his age, they may wait a bit longer than usual.

Become a cardinal? Are you sure about that? Historically that has not been the case but Slipyj etc. was the exception.

Yes, all Major Archbishops, from Slipyj to Husar have been made cardinals. Deacon Lance, correct me if I'm wrong.

Not sure what you mean by outrank, but if you mean who gets to sit where I can tell you when the American bishops made their ad limina visit my Metropolitan was seated before everyone including the cardinals in view of the fact he is the only American bishop who is the head of a sui iuris Church. The patriarchs always precede the cardinals in any Liturgy I have seen.

Would it be possible for your Metropolitan to take the title of Patriarch since he heads a Sui Juris Church? Could we actually have a Patriarch in America one day?

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

Not sure what you mean by outrank, but if you mean who gets to sit where I can tell you when the American bishops made their ad limina visit my Metropolitan was seated before everyone including the cardinals in view of the fact he is the only American bishop who is the head of a sui iuris Church. The patriarchs always precede the cardinals in any Liturgy I have seen.

Would it be possible for your Metropolitan to take the title of Patriarch since he heads a Sui Juris Church? Could we actually have a Patriarch in America one day?

With the pope dropping the title Patriarch of the West, it leaves the door open for many interesting things to happen in the west...

It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.

In No. 75, a "particular honor" given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.

Not sure what you mean by outrank, but if you mean who gets to sit where I can tell you when the American bishops made their ad limina visit my Metropolitan was seated before everyone including the cardinals in view of the fact he is the only American bishop who is the head of a sui iuris Church. The patriarchs always precede the cardinals in any Liturgy I have seen.

Would it be possible for your Metropolitan to take the title of Patriarch since he heads a Sui Juris Church?

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Not sure what you mean by outrank, but if you mean who gets to sit where I can tell you when the American bishops made their ad limina visit my Metropolitan was seated before everyone including the cardinals in view of the fact he is the only American bishop who is the head of a sui iuris Church. The patriarchs always precede the cardinals in any Liturgy I have seen.

Would it be possible for your Metropolitan to take the title of Patriarch since he heads a Sui Juris Church? Could we actually have a Patriarch in America one day?

With the pope dropping the title Patriarch of the West, it leaves the door open for many interesting things to happen in the west...

Not really.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

No. Patriarchs of the Eastern Rite may be cardinals, however, in which case they always belong to the order of cardinal bishops. But a number of Latin Rite archbishops have the title patriarch, such as the patriarch of Venice, the patriarch of Lisbon, and the patriarch of the Gauls. They are normally cardinals, but the red hat is never automatic. And the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem isn't a cardinal, either in fact or by custom.

Okay, but hypothetically speaking, if a bishop is a patriarch, but not a cardinal, would a non-patriarch cardinal outrank him?

If they were walking in a procession in order of seniority, a cardinal would outrank a patriarch who wasn't a cardinal. Does that answer the question?

No. Patriarchs of the Eastern Rite may be cardinals, however, in which case they always belong to the order of cardinal bishops. But a number of Latin Rite archbishops have the title patriarch, such as the patriarch of Venice, the patriarch of Lisbon, and the patriarch of the Gauls. They are normally cardinals, but the red hat is never automatic. And the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem isn't a cardinal, either in fact or by custom.

Okay, but hypothetically speaking, if a bishop is a patriarch, but not a cardinal, would a non-patriarch cardinal outrank him?

If they were walking in a procession in order of seniority, a cardinal would outrank a patriarch who wasn't a cardinal. Does that answer the question?

Here are my questions: What does it matter? Why do you care?

Perhaps its like when you go to a sporting event and a vendor cries out as you enter, "Programs here. Get your programs here. You can't tell the players without a program!" You can still enjoy the game without one, but you may understand more of what's going on with one!

AFAIK Patriarch is just a honorific title with no practical features. On the other hand Cardinal title gives the possibility to vote for the Pope (and be voted too).

Actually, ANY Catholic male can be elected Pope. The Cardinals who vote are those under age 80 (limited to 120 cardinals under canon law) but whoever is elected is not limited to the Cardinals themselves.

No. Patriarchs of the Eastern Rite may be cardinals, however, in which case they always belong to the order of cardinal bishops. But a number of Latin Rite archbishops have the title patriarch, such as the patriarch of Venice, the patriarch of Lisbon, and the patriarch of the Gauls. They are normally cardinals, but the red hat is never automatic. And the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem isn't a cardinal, either in fact or by custom.

He isn't sui juris either. Just another Latin bishop.

ialmisry is quite correct. The Latin patriarch of Venice, the Latin patriarch of Lisbon, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, etc., are all just honorary titles, and not at all like the Melkite patriarch, Maronite patriarch, etc.

If the Eastern Catholic Churches are Rome's sisters, then why do they need the Vatican's permission to change the title of one of their heads? Shouldn't the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church be official enough?

Indeed, those are the types of questions that I often pose to my Eastern Catholic friends in the context of what being a 'sui juris' Church means.

I guess my question would be, out of the Orthodox Churches that have been elevated to patriarchal status, how many of those were self-elevations?

"I guess my question would be, out of the Orthodox Churches that have been elevated to patriarchal status, how many of those were self-elevations?"

The Churches of Bulgaria (a couple of times), Serbia (a couple of times as well), and Russia all come to mind :-). I think Georgia and Romania self-elevated under their monarchs as well, but I could be mistaken...

"I guess my question would be, out of the Orthodox Churches that have been elevated to patriarchal status, how many of those were self-elevations?"

The Churches of Bulgaria (a couple of times), Serbia (a couple of times as well), and Russia all come to mind :-). I think Georgia and Romania self-elevated under their monarchs as well, but I could be mistaken...

So is it just up to each Church to decide if it should be a Patriarchate or not (as some Orthodox posters want to see in the Catholic Church)?

So is it just up to each Church to decide if it should be a Patriarchate or not (as some Orthodox posters want to see in the Catholic Church)?

The process isn't quite that simple, as decisions about such things can be either accepted or rejected by the Orthodox world at large. Also, there are other issues involved. For example, Bulgaria was mentioned... they flip flopped numerous times in the 10th century, going back and forth between Rome and Constantinople regarding who they considered the rightful authority to grant them a certain status.

Generally, certain positions will lead to the bishop becoming a cardinal. Archbishops for the See of Boston, within a couple of years of their appointment are elevated to cardinal. Previous Major Archbishops (sounds so military...lol) have all been made cardinals. It will only be a matter of time before the new Major Archbishop will be enrolled into the College of Cardinals. Tho, due to his age, they may wait a bit longer than usual.

Become a cardinal? Are you sure about that? Historically that has not been the case but Slipyj etc. was the exception.

Yes, all Major Archbishops, from Slipyj to Husar have been made cardinals. Deacon Lance, correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct. Metropolitans Mykhajlo Levitsky and Sylvester Sembratovich were also cardinals.

Would it be possible for your Metropolitan to take the title of Patriarch since he heads a Sui Juris Church? Could we actually have a Patriarch in America one day?

Possible? Yes. Likely? No. Could we see a Patriarch in America? I would like to see the CCEO reformed so that all Eastern Catholic primates, whether Patriarch, Archbishop, or Metropolitan, are elected and enthroned by their Synods and then request communion with the Pope. It isn't the title that matters but the amount of autonomy.

Not sure what you mean by outrank, but if you mean who gets to sit where I can tell you when the American bishops made their ad limina visit my Metropolitan was seated before everyone including the cardinals in view of the fact he is the only American bishop who is the head of a sui iuris Church. The patriarchs always precede the cardinals in any Liturgy I have seen.

Would it be possible for your Metropolitan to take the title of Patriarch since he heads a Sui Juris Church?

"I guess my question would be, out of the Orthodox Churches that have been elevated to patriarchal status, how many of those were self-elevations?"

The Churches of Bulgaria (a couple of times), Serbia (a couple of times as well), and Russia all come to mind :-). I think Georgia and Romania self-elevated under their monarchs as well, but I could be mistaken...

So is it just up to each Church to decide if it should be a Patriarchate or not (as some Orthodox posters want to see in the Catholic Church)?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Not sure what you mean by outrank, but if you mean who gets to sit where I can tell you when the American bishops made their ad limina visit my Metropolitan was seated before everyone including the cardinals in view of the fact he is the only American bishop who is the head of a sui iuris Church. The patriarchs always precede the cardinals in any Liturgy I have seen.

Would it be possible for your Metropolitan to take the title of Patriarch since he heads a Sui Juris Church?

No.

Please refrain from speaking for me or my Church.

Just telling it like it is.

Quote

Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum OrientaliumTITLE 3

The Supreme Authority of the Church

Canon 42Just as, by the Lord's decision, Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, and the bishops, successors of the Apostles, are joined together.

Canon 43The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Canon 451. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded. 2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function. 3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 461. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself. 2. The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 56A patriarch is a bishop who enjoys power over all bishops including metropolitans and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides according to the norm of law approved by the supreme authority of the Church.

Canon 571. The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church. 2. Only the supreme authority of the Church can modify the legitimately recognized or conceded title of each patriarchal Church. 3. If it is possible, a patriarchal Church must have a permanent see for the residence of the patriarch in a principal city inside its own territory from which the patriarch takes his title; this see cannot be transferred except for a most grave reason and with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and the assent of the Roman Pontiff.Canon 58Patriarchs of Eastern Churches precede all bishops of any degree everywhere in the world, with due regard for special norms of precedence established by the Roman Pontiff.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

"I guess my question would be, out of the Orthodox Churches that have been elevated to patriarchal status, how many of those were self-elevations?"

The Churches of Bulgaria (a couple of times), Serbia (a couple of times as well), and Russia all come to mind :-). I think Georgia and Romania self-elevated under their monarchs as well, but I could be mistaken...

No, only Bulgaria, and then only in its third restoration. The rest were all elevated by its former Mother Church, except for Russia, whose elevation was confirmed also by a Synod of Constantinople,Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So is it just up to each Church to decide if it should be a Patriarchate or not (as some Orthodox posters want to see in the Catholic Church)?

The process isn't quite that simple, as decisions about such things can be either accepted or rejected by the Orthodox world at large. Also, there are other issues involved. For example, Bulgaria was mentioned... they flip flopped numerous times in the 10th century, going back and forth between Rome and Constantinople regarding who they considered the rightful authority to grant them a certain status.

You say that in Orthodoxy the process "isn't quite that simple", yet it seems to me that my church is being criticized precisely because it "isn't quite that simple" in Catholicism. For example,

If the Eastern Catholic Churches are Rome's sisters, then why do they need the Vatican's permission to change the title of one of their heads? Shouldn't the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church be official enough?

I would like to see the CCEO reformed so that all Eastern Catholic primates, whether Patriarch, Archbishop, or Metropolitan, are elected and enthroned by their Synods and then request communion with the Pope.

When a new pope is elected does he request communion with the other Catholic primates?

And on another note. Does the pope commemorate the other Catholic patriarchs during liturgy?

I would like to see the CCEO reformed so that all Eastern Catholic primates, whether Patriarch, Archbishop, or Metropolitan, are elected and enthroned by their Synods and then request communion with the Pope.

When a new pope is elected does he request communion with the other Catholic primates?

And on another note. Does the pope commemorate the other Catholic patriarchs during liturgy?

No, the Pope does not commemorate the other patriarchs. At least with Melkites of Antioch, the Synod elects a new patriarch when vacant, a confession of Faith is sent by the new patriarch to Rome and Rome confirms the election. No, the Pope does not request communion with the other Catholic primates. Just by the fact they are in commuinon already makes this unnecessary.